Program Continuity. In order to maintain program continuity, no new or current employee may transfer out of a position within twelve (12) months of accepting the position (except in the case of transfer to a higher paying position), without Anixter Center’s expressed written approval.
Program Continuity. The Parties intend that upon any termination of this Agreement, in whole or in part, the transfer from Novartis to XOMA of rights, materials, data and documentation related to the Licensed Antibodies and Products that are the subject of such termination as described below be conducted as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable, with the goal of ensuring an uninterrupted supply of Products to patients (including to patients enrolled in any clinical trials that are in progress as of the date of such termination), and in keeping with sound scientific, clinical and manufacturing practices and all applicable Laws. [*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Program Continuity. The Parties intend that upon any termination of this Agreement, in whole or in part, the transfer from Novartis to XOMA of rights, materials, data and documentation related to the Licensed Antibodies and Products that are the subject of such termination as described below be conducted as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable, with the goal of ensuring an uninterrupted supply of Products to patients (including to patients enrolled in any clinical trials that are in progress as of the date of such termination), and in keeping with sound scientific, clinical and manufacturing practices and all applicable Laws. -34- Certain confidential portions of this exhibit have been omitted and replaced with “[***]”. such identified information has been excluded from this exhibit because it is (i) not material and (ii) would likely cause competitive harm to the company if disclosed.
Program Continuity. ICAP consisted of a series of three incrementally-funded annual programs, with several no-cost extensions. These annual extensions were governed by modifications to the existing cooperative agreement. Due to its funding structure, ICAP lacked the foresight of a multi-year funded program. Additional funding received on a year-to-year basis had the following negative impacts: • Broad-based and sustainable program plans and strategies were not developed; • Monitoring and evaluation systems measuring long-term impacts were not implemented; • Staff retention was difficult since long-term employment could not be promised • The high turnover of staff deterred program momentum due to resulting information gaps and inconsistent institutional capacity.. This issue has largely been addressed with the rollout of a multi-year ICAP II. Community Action Groups (CAGs). While some CAG's required constant support in taking responsibility and ownership of their projects, other CAG boards performed extremely well in upholding democratic principles and procedures. The boards needed to be independent of local councils and municipal officials, but collaborated with them closely in project implementation. This proved to be a challenge in an environment accustomed to centralized and controlled governance. Other challenges faced by CAGs were a lack of women members and a lack of confidence vis-à- vis municipal officials. Many communities were initially hesitant to elect women, and women were reluctant to serve on boards. ICAP sought to provide channels for women to actively shape community affairs. Nonetheless, both men and women board members were not assertive in front of municipal officials; particularly officials who were also fellow board members. Over time, there was a notable rise in confidence of CAG members as project successes materialized. Certain communities had very little trust that ACDI/VOCA (or any foreign NGO) would deliver on its promises, and only engaged with the project process after contracts were signed. As a result, municipalities often expanded the scope of work, changed the location of projects, added or changed major items, or decided to do major repair works first. This caused delays that impacted the livelihoods of people depending on the projects. Assessing community needs and designing project objectives was a difficult task. Communities reached consensus very quickly on their priorities. Disagreement was more often related to the how or where to impl...
